The Illusion of Benevolence

The man is the Man, and the ladle is commercial withholding

Celebrities and corporate organizations encourage us laypersons to be benevolent, because these same entities are hoping to, ironically, avoid having to do this. They encourage us by using the sick tactic of appearing benevolent, guilting us into following suit. A compassionate sleight of hand, as it were. The very notion makes me ill to my core. I mean, come on, each of these human flytraps who tell us, the commonwealth, to donate to a cause could easily solve the problem if they just donated the bulk sum of their superfluous gains. Right? They’re trying to convince us that it’s “just sixty cents a day, sixty cents a day! *sniffle*”, but that sixty cents is part of the money we all use to live on, not luxury money we can throw at a cause out of guilt.

Why are we of the middle-class asked to donate so much to non-profits? Are you aware that the middle class, at any given moment in the last decade, has only ever had between 20%-30% of the nation's income? Does the rest go to social programs and welfare? No. The lower-class, even with all of their "freeloading" still has never had more than 15% of the nation's revenue. So, who could possibly have the rest but the upper-class? And, are they ever told to donate to non-profits? Sure! If their accountants can rig it so they get a sizeable tax break on their vacant house(s) in northern Idaho, which they visit once a year, like an estranged child they accidentally made with their mistress just so she can't file a negligence lawsuit.

Do the math: $.60/day for 365 days is $219. If I make $35,000 a year (which I don’t (not even remotely)), that comes out to .6% of my gross income. The actress asking for that measly donation is worth roughly $45 million, and .6% of that amount is $270,000. $270,000! ...I guess I did the math. That’s well more than the amount of money it costs to feed a small group of orphaned children for a year--just ask Oliver of Oliver Twist (a live-action novel based on Disney’s animated classic, “Oliver and Company.”) And, with the added donations of her counterparts, we could be feeding orphaned children gourmet meals, every day, on the moon. Why? Because there’s more space there. Get it? More space. Because the moon has less of an atmosphere than Earth. I’m just kidding about all that, though.

We could, however, feasibly build an entire country of just orphaned children and shelter-pets, gathered from around the world, then give them a generous stimulus to kickstart their economy, and eventually let them run their own society. All of this would be worth it, just to stop this “sixty-cents A DAY!!! *high-pitched wailing noise*” nonsense.

And, when it comes to conserving energy, celebrities and entertainment organizations will instruct us, again, to reduced-carbon-foot the bill. Tell me, though: why, in the height of global-warming awareness, is the heart of Las Vegas still running on full energy? Why is Times Square still turned on, all day, every day? Why are the very agencies that release these PDA’s allowed to have Shaq-sized carbon footprints in order to tell us to reduce our carbon footprints akin to the infant feet of Spud Webb? You’re talking to the wrong people, jagweeds. Why don’t you make like Michael Jackson (R.I.P.) and look at the man in the mirror. Or woman. Or group of people. Just, look at whatever you’ll see in a freaking mirror!

Again, my overall point is this: the “benevolence” we peasants are being bombarded with is an illusion, a mirage appearing through the steam of hypocrisy--I mean, don't even get me started on the contractual obligation/ambush-PR campaign that is community outreach by the NBA, NFL, etc. So, if you, like me, are a layperson being talked-down to by these charlatans, remember this: they all have the extra money they're asking for, so there's no shame in using every penny you make to survive--and, maybe you're breathing a dangerous breath similar to theirs, but at least it doesn’t stink.